This right here. The world was a different place back then. One could leave their house without locking their doors, and all that nonsense.
The WMF vulnerability was borne out of the same situation. When designed, there was no consideration made for remote-code execution, because "remote" didn't really exist. Your worries were boot-sector viruses and executable viruses coming in on that floppy of Doom you "borrowed" from your friend. You didn't get viruses from the internet, heck, you were lucky if your computer connected to the internet at all!
To end all this, this design decision clearly and loudly screams: GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
First of all, you never mentioned that "for sufficiently big N" in your first post.
That's automatically implied when dealing with Big-O notation.
Secondly, finding a solution that requires a maximum of 2N flips can be done with O(N*log N) comparisons, not O(N^2).
O(N*log N) comparisons? I think you're getting confused here, because one can only find the largest element in an unsorted list in O(N) time. The algorithm originally described is essentially a copy of nearly every O(N^2) algorithm. "Find the largest, put it at the end, sort the rest using this algorithm."
Thirdly, for N sufficiently big that O(N*log N) comparisons on a computer takes more time than O(N) actual flips, you need have such a large stack of pancakes, that the flipping time can no longer be considered O(1).
Let's assume that the flipping time is not O(1), because it's not. Flipping a list is a relatively straight-forward operation of swapping the first and last element, then flipping the string inside, until the first and last element are either the same, or cross. This takes 1/2 * N operations. Thus, the operation is O(N). But wait, the "find the largest element" operation was O(N) as well, so we have O(N * (N + N)) which is.... O(N^2).
Maybe you should spend some more time on the problem, and a little less effort on patronizing.
I think he did. The algorithm as originally described is O(N^2), and everything he's talking about lines up properly. Meanwhile, you seem to be misusing terminology, and confusing matters. I have to ask, did you take an algorithms course, or did you just read about Big-O notation on Wikipedia?
While you're right, it's because of pervasive cultural stereotypes, rather than anything "biological" or "rational". I know you didn't say or imply that this were the case, but just pointing that out.
Of course, companies whose only goal in "life" is to increase profits will exploit cultural stereotypes and biases to make us buy things, and/or give them money. Advertising is the literal embodiment of this notion.
Agreed, but you were confusing in your posts about what you meant and what you were trying to get at.
For all meanings of "addiction", marijuana is clearly less addictive than nicotine. So, I kind of fail to understand how my post could have been confusing.
Bleh, ok, I get it. The OP posted the title with "LORD" in all-caps, and not doing it with any of the other words. The ambiguous and contradictory nature of the grandparent post was confusing, but I get it now.
Just curious, why do some Christians capitalize "Lord"? I can't see it being because of simple importance, because you're not doing the same to "God" or "Jesus" or even "Saviour" or any of those words. Are you just copying what you've read from someone else?
Are you referring to the practice of using small-caps? Because your examples contradict your statement. They do tend to capitalize "God", "Jesus", "Christ", and even pronouns referring to their god, "He", and "We" when their god apparently addresses themselves in the royal plural...
Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen?
No, generally not. This isn't a question that we struggle with, or wonder about. It's like asking if Alice is going to go to the store tomorrow. If I don't believe that Alice exists, then I won't ask her to pick anything up for me, and so if Alice is presumed to be going to the store or not is completely irrelevant to me. However, the question is interesting to believers, and that's why we bring it up in debates with believers.
It's not even like we invented the question, Christians came up with it themselves. "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" It's been asked longer than before the Book of Job was written. Except now there is an alternative answer to creation. Even if one of the people in the age of the Founding Fathers of the USA were to not believe in Christianity, there still wasn't any good explanation for the origin of life. They believed in a "Creator" because there just wasn't a better answer available to them.
But now we have no need for the hypothesis of a god. So, really now the situation becomes one of pure personal opinion. God/Religion is the why, and Science is the how. The problem is that there are still people out there asserting that God/Religion is the how, and that their holy scriptures are the infallible word of a deity.
So, in short, atheists don't have "bad theology", they don't have to deal with theology at all. Beyond simple, "there are in all likelihood no gods." We bring up these horribly difficult questions of theology, because you theists have been struggling with them for centuries, and the more we can get people to ponder them, and see the most rational explanation accounting for the apparent absence of any deity at all... the more converts we win.
My desire for the scaling back of govt. is not of the kind that's about a scaling back uniformly across all of its dimensions.
Oh... so you're a big-spending republican. They keep saying that they want to cut government spending as well, but then when you pin them down on them expanding government into a new area, they're all "but that's important, we shouldn't cut spending from that!"
It all makes sense now. It's so nice to have had this talk, so that I can understand you better. (Yes, I am intentionally antagonizing you.)
The OP posted that his wife's voice is harsher than fingernails on a chalkboard. I don't like the voices of Rosanne Barr, Gilbert Gottfried, or Fran Drescher, but I wouldn't call them harsher than fingernails on a chalkboard.
So, AC posts a comment disparaging his wife and exaggerating a possible negative characteristics of hers (if she even actually exists). I don't mean to imply that AC is lying about being married, but this is clearly a joke, and jokes don't need to be true to be told. (I've told a "two strings walk into a bar" joke more often than is necessary to doubt my personal sanity, but that doesn't mean that I've seen two strings walking into a bar...)
So, as someone pointed out, the nagging wife with an annoyingly shrill voice is a stereotype. This joke plays upon that stereotype in order to establish a joke. While there may be an actual individual with a shrill and annoying voice, the joke relies upon a sexist stereotype in order to be funny to the larger population.
As an example, "The only thing crustier than XY, is my husbands psoriasis!"... WTF dude? That's not funny, because the person has a real condition, it's not funny to talk about, it's a private matter that shouldn't be shared with complete strangers. It's also not funny, because there is no cultural expectation with the audience about husbands typically having psoriasis. At best, you can make it funny by playing up the "TMI" route, but that's clearly not what happened here. People found the joke funny because we have a stereotype that wives have shrill voices to nag men with.
Let me put it another way, "The only thing that humps anything that movies more than the dog, is my husband." HEYO! Oh... now it's not funny, because I'm making fun of men, right? Damn, men only seem to recognize sexism when it happens to them, doesn't it?
You generate your own confusion then -- I said nothing of what I'd actually advocate for on these issues, only that our brains arrive at opposite arguments being made by the same assertion.
So... you don't want smaller governments and for governments to get out of our way?
No, it most certainly should not. That forced nomenclature is worse than what it ostensibly tries to solve.
Forced nomenclature? You think everyone just up and decided that kilometer should mean 1,000 meters? All measurements are "forced nomenclature". You don't get to choose how much a meter is, and if 1,000 meters should be called a "hapimeter", so what does it matter if 1,000 meters is a kilometer, and 1,024 meters is a kibimeter? They're both arbitrary words that are both equally "forced nomenclature".
IT DOESN'T MATTER which "addiction" we're talking about. Marijuana is known to be less addictive than the legal drug nicotine, so the argument that it should be illegal because it's addictive is based on a false premise.
Unless they do, then the really can. The problem is the overlap between pot smokers and slackers.
Its easier to quit smoking pot than it is to stop drinking soda.
So... you're saying that caffeine is not addictive as well?
The poster clearly wrote that caffeine is more addictive than marijuana, not that caffeine isn't addictive.
Poster originally argued that marijuana isn't addictive at all. I mean, obviously any natural number is larger than 0, so it would be the case that caffeine is "more addictive" than marijuana given his original assertion, but the problem is making that comparison at all. Is it easier to stop brushing your teeth than smoking marijuana? Is it easier to stop beating your wife than smoking marijuana? Is it easier to stop using heroin than marijuana? Is it easier to stop painting things blue than to stop smoking marijuana?
The comparison was pointless unless you implicitly admit that marijuana is addictive.
[...] nicotine is [...] more addictive than marijuana.
If this sounds like an argument for decreasing the restrictions on marijuana, then you're a Leftist. If it sounds instead like an argument for increasing the restrictions on nicotine, then you're a Rightist. It's not only mutually exclusive values sets, but also senses of logic. Even bothering talking with one another is the polite thing to do, but futile.
I thought you wanted the government to get out of people's lives, but now you're saying that they should ban nicotine and jail smokers? I'm confused...
Unless they do, then the really can. The problem is the overlap between pot smokers and slackers.
Its easier to quit smoking pot than it is to stop drinking soda.
So... you're saying that caffeine is not addictive as well?
I'm sorry, but "slightly addictive" is still addictive. That doesn't make it a valid reason to make it illegal though, nicotine is easily more addictive, and it's still legal, so "marijuana is addictive" shouldn't be a valid argument that you even allow. You actually give them credence by arguing against it.
Lie or truth, the statement "marijuana is addictive" is not a sufficient reason to make it illegal.
It's like, red cars are illegal, and the government puts out a claim that "red cars are less visible". You don't argue against this claim with "but red cars are more visible!" Because then you just get into a shouting match of "nu-huh!" "ya-huh!" "nu-huh!" "ya-huh!"... No, rather you argue with "black cars are easily known to be less visible than red cars, yet black cars are not illegal, therefore regardless of if your statement is true or false, this is not a valid premise for the illegality of red cars." That way they have nothing to come back against your argument with. By using this disarming tactic, they can argue that "red cars are less visible" until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, because you've correctly pointed out: THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
Throw out all other reasons for legalizing marijuana or keeping it illegal. It is quite plainly and simply at the same level or lower of harm and danger to the user as alcohol and tobacco. Is marijuana addictive? You know what? The answer doesn't even matter, because nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs available, and it's legal. At the very least, nicotine is easily and readily provable to be more addictive than marijuana.
The GP is right, while he may have asked people to draft policy based on science and not on politics and ideology, the problem is that as President you don't live in that power vacuum. What you decide to do is still influenced by politics, and the GP is right when he says that all of these disappointing answers won't be properly or well addressed, because the opposition to Obama (in the de facto dichotomy of US politics, even if it is a false dichotomy) is not going to get the votes of these people who are upset by these answers.
Oh noes! Obama supports having "under God" in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" on our money, damn. I should vote him out of office.. and vote for whom? Who of the Republican candidates would not take religion more to heart and go out of their way to support a Christian religion? There is not a secular Republican candidate (except as noted maybe Huntsman, and I think Gary Johnson might be as well, but he has even less support than Huntsman).
Well, slashdot is well-known to mangle unicode, so, I thought that I would write a message that I knew included an em-dash, and then we would know—or at least know as well as anyone could know.
Because, you know, the 1000+ currently open job postings for keyword "programmer" on Monster.com are just a perfect example of situations where people are already looking to fire you. After all, that's why they created the posting, just so they could waste company resources and fire someone./sarcasm
Sarcasm and all, this is the rantings of a single person at a single company, about his own personal view of the topic. I could probably find someone who would tell you that using the Oxford comma is likely to get you fired, and due to some forms of projection (the assumption that you are "typical", and you model everyone in the world based on yourself) they will assume that it's the prevalent opinion.
Spoken like a Democrat, who votes for Democrats, who also voted in the Patriot Act.
Of course, the Republican administration using fear mongering of "we need this to fight the turrrists, or we'll have a new 9/11!" had absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats voting in favor of it, right?
Shall we blame more victims of fraud for the wrongful acts of those who lied to them?
People do complain about that, all the time - just not generally native English speakers. Likewise, it's not a complaint you usually see coming out of thedamian or chromatic;-)
I have to correct your use of the em-dash here. First, it's supposed to be an em-dash, and not a hyphen, but second of all, there should be no spaces setting it off.......
Slashdot Mirror
This right here. The world was a different place back then. One could leave their house without locking their doors, and all that nonsense.
The WMF vulnerability was borne out of the same situation. When designed, there was no consideration made for remote-code execution, because "remote" didn't really exist. Your worries were boot-sector viruses and executable viruses coming in on that floppy of Doom you "borrowed" from your friend. You didn't get viruses from the internet, heck, you were lucky if your computer connected to the internet at all!
To end all this, this design decision clearly and loudly screams: GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
Oh, and how did you solve the problem of finding the largest unsorted pancake on O(1) time? The fastest my computer can do it is O(n)...
Um.... you're confusing me, because the OP posted:
To me, assuming that you consider "Find the largest unsorted pancake" to be O(N)
First of all, you never mentioned that "for sufficiently big N" in your first post.
That's automatically implied when dealing with Big-O notation.
Secondly, finding a solution that requires a maximum of 2N flips can be done with O(N*log N) comparisons, not O(N^2).
O(N*log N) comparisons? I think you're getting confused here, because one can only find the largest element in an unsorted list in O(N) time. The algorithm originally described is essentially a copy of nearly every O(N^2) algorithm. "Find the largest, put it at the end, sort the rest using this algorithm."
Thirdly, for N sufficiently big that O(N*log N) comparisons on a computer takes more time than O(N) actual flips, you need have such a large stack of pancakes, that the flipping time can no longer be considered O(1).
Let's assume that the flipping time is not O(1), because it's not. Flipping a list is a relatively straight-forward operation of swapping the first and last element, then flipping the string inside, until the first and last element are either the same, or cross. This takes 1/2 * N operations. Thus, the operation is O(N). But wait, the "find the largest element" operation was O(N) as well, so we have O(N * (N + N)) which is.... O(N^2).
Maybe you should spend some more time on the problem, and a little less effort on patronizing.
I think he did. The algorithm as originally described is O(N^2), and everything he's talking about lines up properly. Meanwhile, you seem to be misusing terminology, and confusing matters. I have to ask, did you take an algorithms course, or did you just read about Big-O notation on Wikipedia?
While you're right, it's because of pervasive cultural stereotypes, rather than anything "biological" or "rational". I know you didn't say or imply that this were the case, but just pointing that out.
Of course, companies whose only goal in "life" is to increase profits will exploit cultural stereotypes and biases to make us buy things, and/or give them money. Advertising is the literal embodiment of this notion.
Surely most people prefer to listen to the opposite sex, provided they do not suffer from sexual identity disorder or a similar crippling condition ...
Sexual identity disorder? Crippling condition? ... holy fuck.
Agreed, but you were confusing in your posts about what you meant and what you were trying to get at.
For all meanings of "addiction", marijuana is clearly less addictive than nicotine. So, I kind of fail to understand how my post could have been confusing.
Bleh, ok, I get it. The OP posted the title with "LORD" in all-caps, and not doing it with any of the other words. The ambiguous and contradictory nature of the grandparent post was confusing, but I get it now.
Just curious, why do some Christians capitalize "Lord"? I can't see it being because of simple importance, because you're not doing the same to "God" or "Jesus" or even "Saviour" or any of those words. Are you just copying what you've read from someone else?
Are you referring to the practice of using small-caps? Because your examples contradict your statement. They do tend to capitalize "God", "Jesus", "Christ", and even pronouns referring to their god, "He", and "We" when their god apparently addresses themselves in the royal plural...
Many modern atheists have bad theology. They think: How does an all powerful and good God let bad things happen?
No, generally not. This isn't a question that we struggle with, or wonder about. It's like asking if Alice is going to go to the store tomorrow. If I don't believe that Alice exists, then I won't ask her to pick anything up for me, and so if Alice is presumed to be going to the store or not is completely irrelevant to me. However, the question is interesting to believers, and that's why we bring it up in debates with believers.
It's not even like we invented the question, Christians came up with it themselves. "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" It's been asked longer than before the Book of Job was written. Except now there is an alternative answer to creation. Even if one of the people in the age of the Founding Fathers of the USA were to not believe in Christianity, there still wasn't any good explanation for the origin of life. They believed in a "Creator" because there just wasn't a better answer available to them.
But now we have no need for the hypothesis of a god. So, really now the situation becomes one of pure personal opinion. God/Religion is the why, and Science is the how. The problem is that there are still people out there asserting that God/Religion is the how, and that their holy scriptures are the infallible word of a deity.
So, in short, atheists don't have "bad theology", they don't have to deal with theology at all. Beyond simple, "there are in all likelihood no gods." We bring up these horribly difficult questions of theology, because you theists have been struggling with them for centuries, and the more we can get people to ponder them, and see the most rational explanation accounting for the apparent absence of any deity at all... the more converts we win.
My desire for the scaling back of govt. is not of the kind that's about a scaling back uniformly across all of its dimensions.
Oh... so you're a big-spending republican. They keep saying that they want to cut government spending as well, but then when you pin them down on them expanding government into a new area, they're all "but that's important, we shouldn't cut spending from that!"
It all makes sense now. It's so nice to have had this talk, so that I can understand you better. (Yes, I am intentionally antagonizing you.)
The OP posted that his wife's voice is harsher than fingernails on a chalkboard. I don't like the voices of Rosanne Barr, Gilbert Gottfried, or Fran Drescher, but I wouldn't call them harsher than fingernails on a chalkboard.
So, AC posts a comment disparaging his wife and exaggerating a possible negative characteristics of hers (if she even actually exists). I don't mean to imply that AC is lying about being married, but this is clearly a joke, and jokes don't need to be true to be told. (I've told a "two strings walk into a bar" joke more often than is necessary to doubt my personal sanity, but that doesn't mean that I've seen two strings walking into a bar...)
So, as someone pointed out, the nagging wife with an annoyingly shrill voice is a stereotype. This joke plays upon that stereotype in order to establish a joke. While there may be an actual individual with a shrill and annoying voice, the joke relies upon a sexist stereotype in order to be funny to the larger population.
As an example, "The only thing crustier than XY, is my husbands psoriasis!" ... WTF dude? That's not funny, because the person has a real condition, it's not funny to talk about, it's a private matter that shouldn't be shared with complete strangers. It's also not funny, because there is no cultural expectation with the audience about husbands typically having psoriasis. At best, you can make it funny by playing up the "TMI" route, but that's clearly not what happened here. People found the joke funny because we have a stereotype that wives have shrill voices to nag men with.
Let me put it another way, "The only thing that humps anything that movies more than the dog, is my husband." HEYO! Oh... now it's not funny, because I'm making fun of men, right? Damn, men only seem to recognize sexism when it happens to them, doesn't it?
You generate your own confusion then -- I said nothing of what I'd actually advocate for on these issues, only that our brains arrive at opposite arguments being made by the same assertion.
So... you don't want smaller governments and for governments to get out of our way?
Trust me, anyone pedantic enough to use binary prefix notation, will know what it means, and use it correctly.
How do I know this? Precisely for the reason you complain about: they sound silly using it.
No, it most certainly should not. That forced nomenclature is worse than what it ostensibly tries to solve.
Forced nomenclature? You think everyone just up and decided that kilometer should mean 1,000 meters? All measurements are "forced nomenclature". You don't get to choose how much a meter is, and if 1,000 meters should be called a "hapimeter", so what does it matter if 1,000 meters is a kilometer, and 1,024 meters is a kibimeter? They're both arbitrary words that are both equally "forced nomenclature".
[My wife's voice] Is the only sound that is more harsh than fingernails on a chalkboard.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sexism...
IT DOESN'T MATTER which "addiction" we're talking about. Marijuana is known to be less addictive than the legal drug nicotine, so the argument that it should be illegal because it's addictive is based on a false premise.
Unless they do, then the really can. The problem is the overlap between pot smokers and slackers.
Its easier to quit smoking pot than it is to stop drinking soda.
So... you're saying that caffeine is not addictive as well?
The poster clearly wrote that caffeine is more addictive than marijuana, not that caffeine isn't addictive.
Poster originally argued that marijuana isn't addictive at all. I mean, obviously any natural number is larger than 0, so it would be the case that caffeine is "more addictive" than marijuana given his original assertion, but the problem is making that comparison at all. Is it easier to stop brushing your teeth than smoking marijuana? Is it easier to stop beating your wife than smoking marijuana? Is it easier to stop using heroin than marijuana? Is it easier to stop painting things blue than to stop smoking marijuana?
The comparison was pointless unless you implicitly admit that marijuana is addictive.
If this sounds like an argument for decreasing the restrictions on marijuana, then you're a Leftist. If it sounds instead like an argument for increasing the restrictions on nicotine, then you're a Rightist. It's not only mutually exclusive values sets, but also senses of logic. Even bothering talking with one another is the polite thing to do, but futile.
I thought you wanted the government to get out of people's lives, but now you're saying that they should ban nicotine and jail smokers? I'm confused...
To be honest I'm more concerned with the question of whether comments in code should have full stops (periods).
If they are full sentences, then yes, they should always have full stops.
Not full-sentences? no
Unless they do, then the really can. The problem is the overlap between pot smokers and slackers.
Its easier to quit smoking pot than it is to stop drinking soda.
So... you're saying that caffeine is not addictive as well?
I'm sorry, but "slightly addictive" is still addictive. That doesn't make it a valid reason to make it illegal though, nicotine is easily more addictive, and it's still legal, so "marijuana is addictive" shouldn't be a valid argument that you even allow. You actually give them credence by arguing against it.
Lie or truth, the statement "marijuana is addictive" is not a sufficient reason to make it illegal.
It's like, red cars are illegal, and the government puts out a claim that "red cars are less visible". You don't argue against this claim with "but red cars are more visible!" Because then you just get into a shouting match of "nu-huh!" "ya-huh!" "nu-huh!" "ya-huh!" ... No, rather you argue with "black cars are easily known to be less visible than red cars, yet black cars are not illegal, therefore regardless of if your statement is true or false, this is not a valid premise for the illegality of red cars." That way they have nothing to come back against your argument with. By using this disarming tactic, they can argue that "red cars are less visible" until they're blue in the face, but it doesn't matter, because you've correctly pointed out: THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
Throw out all other reasons for legalizing marijuana or keeping it illegal. It is quite plainly and simply at the same level or lower of harm and danger to the user as alcohol and tobacco. Is marijuana addictive? You know what? The answer doesn't even matter, because nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs available, and it's legal. At the very least, nicotine is easily and readily provable to be more addictive than marijuana.
The GP is right, while he may have asked people to draft policy based on science and not on politics and ideology, the problem is that as President you don't live in that power vacuum. What you decide to do is still influenced by politics, and the GP is right when he says that all of these disappointing answers won't be properly or well addressed, because the opposition to Obama (in the de facto dichotomy of US politics, even if it is a false dichotomy) is not going to get the votes of these people who are upset by these answers.
Oh noes! Obama supports having "under God" in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" on our money, damn. I should vote him out of office.. and vote for whom? Who of the Republican candidates would not take religion more to heart and go out of their way to support a Christian religion? There is not a secular Republican candidate (except as noted maybe Huntsman, and I think Gary Johnson might be as well, but he has even less support than Huntsman).
Well, slashdot is well-known to mangle unicode, so, I thought that I would write a message that I knew included an em-dash, and then we would know—or at least know as well as anyone could know.
Because, you know, the 1000+ currently open job postings for keyword "programmer" on Monster.com are just a perfect example of situations where people are already looking to fire you. After all, that's why they created the posting, just so they could waste company resources and fire someone. /sarcasm
Sarcasm and all, this is the rantings of a single person at a single company, about his own personal view of the topic. I could probably find someone who would tell you that using the Oxford comma is likely to get you fired, and due to some forms of projection (the assumption that you are "typical", and you model everyone in the world based on yourself) they will assume that it's the prevalent opinion.
Spoken like a Democrat, who votes for Democrats, who also voted in the Patriot Act.
Of course, the Republican administration using fear mongering of "we need this to fight the turrrists, or we'll have a new 9/11!" had absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats voting in favor of it, right?
Shall we blame more victims of fraud for the wrongful acts of those who lied to them?
People do complain about that, all the time - just not generally native English speakers. Likewise, it's not a complaint you usually see coming out of thedamian or chromatic ;-)
I have to correct your use of the em-dash here. First, it's supposed to be an em-dash, and not a hyphen, but second of all, there should be no spaces setting it off. ... ...
CODING STYLE MATTERS, GODDAMMIT!